Standing Committee A

[Mr. David Amessin the Chair]

Clause 8

Limited capability for work

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 255, in clause 8, page 6, line 7, after ‘work’ insert ‘or work-related activity’.—[Mr. Hunt.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 256, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, after ‘determined’ insert ‘by a single assessment’.
No. 251, in clause 8, page 6, line 24, after ‘work’ insert ‘or work-related activity’.
No. 252, in clause 8, page 6, line 27, after ‘work’ insert ‘or work-related activity’.

Jim Murphy: Welcome back, Mr. Amess. Mr. Hood was here for the shorter sitting this morning. If our proceedings do last for three hours I hope that you do not develop that Scottish dialect that seems to be so common in the Committee.

Jeremy Hunt: With a bit of Surrey thrown in.

Jim Murphy: Well, in passing the baton to you, Mr. Hood will have confirmed that we had a really constructive debate. I see no reason why that should not continue this afternoon. He allowed us some latitude in our debate on clause 8 to wander on to related aspects of clause 9. I understand that you, quite rightly, will rule it out of order if we stray too far in that direction. The clauses are closely connected. Mr. Hood also allowed the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) to refer to the fact that I was the only Member of Parliament who at some point in the past could name the five Spice Girls. I do not know whether it is because I am getting older but I am unable to name the four members of the Arctic Monkeys or the four members of The Killers.

Gordon Banks: Are there four?

Jim Murphy: Well, perhaps I am a little more in touch than my hon. Friend. Let me make some progress, as that is not what we are here to talk about.
A number of points have been raised. I share in the enjoyment of the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire). We heard from her this morning and we will hear from her in much greater detail as we deal with various clauses. Not only did she manage to secure that constituency in Stirling, but she inadvertently created the Conservative party’s current problem. The gentleman she defeated is the author of their tax report, which they are both for and against today.

David Ruffley: Consensus, please.

Jim Murphy: Okay. I will move on.

Jeremy Hunt: Does the Minister welcome the economic prosperity that the low-tax climate of the 1980s engendered? We have been able to be much more generous in disability benefits since then than we might have been had we followed the policies advocated up to 1979.

David Amess: Order. We will not go down that road.

Jim Murphy: Of course we should not go further down that road. We will at various points in our proceedings allude to the levels of child poverty and workless households and the trebling of people on incapacity benefit and the fact that the first act of any Conservative Government when they came to power was to cut benefits.
Mr. Huntrose—

Jim Murphy: I will not give way. We will try to make some progress on the basis of consensus. The hon. Gentleman quite fairly reminded the Committee of the prevalence of poverty in households where there is one or more disabled adult or one or more disabled child. He is aware that there is a Treasury-led review of some of these issues. Like me, he attended some of the hearings, chaired very ably and eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble).
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify that prevalence: 26 per cent. of children in poverty in the UK today live in a household with one or more disabled adult. There is a clear connection, which is why the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) reminded us that one of the key aims of the Bill is to make a contribution to eradicating that relative child poverty. Our assessment is that they number around 100,000 when one considers that about one in six of the people on incapacity benefit have a dependent child.
I turn now to the specific points that have been raised. One point was raised slightly tangentially by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) and others about the level of confusion and the need for continuous and repeat assessments. Of course we should seek to minimise the need for repeat assessments, which should be a key element of our business design processes, with one important caveat: we seek continually to measure and assess fluctuating physical and mental health conditions, so it would be entirely appropriate to set up a system of regular assessments; indeed, we would be criticised if we did not do so. As we discussed in an earlier sitting, the personal capability assessment review is not a snapshot in time but a measurement of a citizen’s or customer’s experience of their disability or limitation over a period.

Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that the golden thread running through the decision making should be whether the assessment process is genuinely intended to be supportive of the claimant rather than punitive? If the Minister, with his greater eloquence than mine, can persuade people that it is in their interests to undergo multiple assessments, which are something of an ordeal, in order to get a picture of their situation, that is one thing, but constantly nagging them in the interests of a bureaucratic system would be seen as another.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that relates to the issue of confusion, particularly over the linking rules, which was raised earlier. As hon. Members know, constituents often say, “I think I might want to come off incapacity benefit and try the world of work but I would lose all my benefits. I am worried about what will happen to me if it doesn’t work out.” That is why the linking rules exist and why this month we implemented the extension of those rules from one year to two. I confirm that the linking rules will also apply in respect of employment and support allowance. If someone tries the world of work and it turns out not to be appropriate, for whatever reason, the improved linking rules from this month will be carried over on to ESA.

Kali Mountford: On the matter of the linking rules, which are very important in encouraging people to try the world of work, can the Minister confirm that it is also important that people take the advice of their personal adviser and find out what applies in their case, rather than listening to Doris next door and the gossip on the street?

Jim Murphy: That is a fair point, although I am not sure that the Government can legislate on it—

Kali Mountford: But they can give guidance.

Jim Murphy: We cannot stop people passing on gossip on the street. However, the availability of strong and clear advice is important.
I visited the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), recently and met a lady who had extensive experience as a paramedic—I will not name her as I have not asked her permission to do so. She had to undergo a brain operation and it had been suggested that she would make a full recovery and return to being a paramedic. That was not the case and members of her family said that she would lose her benefit if she tried to work. Informal advice can useful, but it must be accurate. That is why citizens advice bureaux, the voluntary sector and non-governmental organisations are crucial. When, with Parliament’s approval, we implement this Bill and the employment and support allowance, we will need to make a sustained effort to ensure that the voluntary sector and others can pass on accurate and objective advice.

Danny Alexander: I agree with the Minister’s point, but is it not also important to ensure that staff at Jobcentre Plus give accurate advice? In particular, when someone is applying for one benefit they should also be given advice on their entitlement to other benefits, if any, so that people get what they need in full. Is the Minister concerned about cases in my constituency in which someone has turned up to claim benefit and the security guard at the door of Jobcentre Plus has said, “Oh no, you’re not entitled”? That has been a barrier to people, which should not have been there.

Jim Murphy: In general, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he is seriously suggesting that a security guard in a jobcentre in his constituency is making assessments of benefit entitlement then that is a very serious allegation, and he should bring it to my attention and I shall investigate it. He has said it on the record today, so I look forward to the evidence being provided.

Tim Boswell: While we are on the same general thought, and without allegations being entered into against our own company, will the Minister also consider the possibility of a public information campaign through MPs to their constituents? Understanding should not be confined to the anoraks who grace the Committee—even partially—with their comprehension of matters; the general body of MPs who are trying to advise their constituents and point them in the right direction should understand the changes and be able to explain that they are not intended to be penal.

Jim Murphy: That is another fair point, in response to which I have two comments. First, the hon. Gentleman’s point has importance even while the Bill is passing through Parliament, because we all know the diversity of the conditions experienced by our constituents—the frustrations and worries that some of them may have when they hear a conversation in Parliament about welfare reform. Thus far, the debate at a political level has been entirely appropriate, and there has not been the type of scaremongering that has sometimes occurred in the past, fairly or unfairly. We all have a responsibility to consider the tone and content of our conversation on welfare reform, so that those who pick up newspapers or who hear a clip on Radio Five Live or Radio 4, or wherever, do not inadvertently take the wrong message from our deliberations.

David Ruffley: On that point, will the Minister join me in deprecating the use in certain newspapers of banner headlines that refer to scroungers and cheats? On a glance from the general reader, such headlines imply that anyone who claims benefits may potentially want to work the system, as such newspapers suggest. All of us here should be extremely careful to ensure that the debate is conducted in the terms that the Minister just described.

Jim Murphy: That point is entirely fair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to put on the record the newspapers that he considers to be most culpable.

David Ruffley: From a sedentary position, no.

Jim Murphy: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s partial bravery.
The other point that I wanted to make may seem small. It is not an issue for Government, or for the Committee—it is a matter for the House authorities. One of the issues for Members of Parliament who wish to provide objective information to their constituents is connected to the fact that we were lobbied yesterday by the sub-postmasters—entirely appropriately, given the genuine concerns that they feel. One of the things that has surprised me in the past is that our own post office in this building does not always carry the type of leaflets that our own constituents are encouraged to pick up and to rely on, respond to and fill in. If the post office here had such forms available, so that Members could see them in the course of their daily business in the Commons, that would be a small step in our own education in our constituents’ experience, and may also enable us to pass such information on in our constituency surgeries.
On the specifics of the amendments, at the moment we use the term personal capability assessment. Incidentally, I do not think that that is the appropriate term, but that is something that we can consider as the Bill passes through the House and through the other place. In many people’s minds it is a term that is connected to incapacity benefit, and one of the weaknesses of incapacity benefit has been that it has labelled people as incapacitated or incapable. The personal capability assessment has been seen as an intrinsic part of IB. In terms of how we describe this new assessment phase, it will be important to move away from that as well.
Currently, we use the term PCA to describe the medical assessment of entitlement to incapacity benefit. With ESA, we will use—at the moment—the personal capability assessment to describe a wider process. First, it will assess a person’s capability for work—and with it, their eligibility for ESA, and secondly, their capability for work-related activity—and with it, whether they should be a member of the support group. Thirdly, it will assess the health-related support that a person needs to improve their capability and move closer to appropriate work. I will add some detail to those comments and then, if hon. Members wish, I will give way.
Members of the Committee have suggested that the first two tests should be determined by the same assessment. That is the crux of the amendment before us. Although they are part of a single assessment process, they are assessing different concepts—work, and the ability to undertake work-related activity. Therefore, I want to talk through what happens when a customer applies for ESA.
Where it is clear from written evidence supplied by a customer claiming ESA that he or she has limited capability for work-related activity and should therefore be a member of the support group, we will not require that person to come in for a face to face medical examination. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it would be wrong to ask customers with the most severe problems or conditions to attend a medical examination of that nature. Where it is not apparent from the written evidence that a customer should be in the support group, they will be asked to attend a medical examination at which the assessments for both limited capability for work and work-related activity will be carried out.
The eligibility criteria for limited capability for work will involve a similar process to that which we use to determine eligibility for incapacity benefit. We will use a benefit entitlement threshold that is satisfied when a person scores 15 points by satisfying one or more physical or mental descriptors. This 15-point threshold represents a level at which it is unreasonable to expect a person to work. It does not identify the level of functional limitation at which it would be unreasonable to require someone to engage in work-related activity. There is no direct relationship between someone having a high score in the test for limited capability for work and that person being an appropriate candidate for membership of the support group.
The assessment of limited capability for work deals with the threshold to entitlement to employment and support allowance and makes no determination about the capability for work-related activity. The descriptors used are designed to look at a wider and less severe level of functional limitation and do not involve the degree of sophistication that we are using for limited capability for work-related activity. I appreciate that this is to some extent detailed, but I will add more detail.
The points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee before the interruption were similar to those that I, the Under-Secretary and others teased out through the process. We sought reassurances on the process and asked similar questions to those that were asked in our proceedings earlier today.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) rose—
Mr. Boswellrose—
Mr. Murphy I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David).

Wayne David: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would clarify that the PCA is not the provision that combines the scores in the mental and physical health assessments. Are they separate and distinct and if so, why is that?

Jim Murphy: I give way to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

Tim Boswell: I am not sure to what extent this will widen the population of people who will understand the point, but it might, particularly with people who are computer or digitally related. From the hon. Gentleman’s description, it seems that the test in clause 8 is a digital one. A person either has a capability for work or does not—up to a certain threshold—it is either on or off. The test under clause 9 is more of an analogue test in which certain other capabilities can be applied and judgment made accordingly. It is a progressive rather than an absolute type of decision.

Jim Murphy: I would describe the difference between the two tests in various ways, whether it is digital or analogue. However, I would not seek to differentiate the way in which we will apply this test.
I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly. Given that we have changed the mental health scoring system to better reflect learning disabilities and fluctuating mental health conditions and that descriptors score six, nine or 15 points toward the 15-point threshold, we do not consider it appropriate to maintain our old practice of weighting the combined mental health and physical descriptor score so that a score below 15 points will still satisfy the PCA. The 15 points will entitle someone to the employment and support allowance. A group of 46 other descriptors, to which I will come in a moment, will assess them to be considered as part of a support group.
When evaluating the revised PCA and assessing its effectiveness, we will consider what approach should generally be taken to combining physical and mental health scores. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that that is a key point. As we test the new PCA, we will test whether the revised methodology is right. We are doing that by testing it alongside the current PCA to ensure the right outcomes.
I come to the point raised in an earlier conversation on this amendment. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey asked how we would validate the process under the revised PCAs. It is our intention to run both systems alongside one another to ensure the outcome that we anticipate from the new PCA—not writing anyone off. If, however, having compared the two systems, we see faults and experience weaknesses in the new design, we will refine that design and test it again. There will be two runs, and we will of course share that information with others, including those with close interests in the issue such as disability lobby organisations and others.
I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey on the important point that he raised. We will first run a pilot alongside the current PCA, refine it if necessary, run a further pilot and share the information with others throughout the process. We have settled that that will be the most effective way of testing the new PCA so that it is up and running in time for the national roll-out of pathways and, we hope, for the implementation, with Parliament’s permission, of the Welfare Reform Bill in 2008. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman about the rigorous process that we intend to undertake for the revised PCA.
I come to the wider points raised about the amendment by the hon. Member for Daventry. The levels of functional limitation used in the descriptors for determining limited capability for work-related activity are greater because we intend to place in the support group only the minority of customers who are so severely impaired that it would not be reasonable to require them to undertake work-related activity. The Government feel that assessing support group status by the number of points awarded in the assessment of limited capability for work would create a number of important inequalities, although I know that that is not the amendment’s intention. It would reinvent in some ways the sense of a condition creating an automatic entitlement to be in the support group. People with less severe functional limitations across a range of descriptors might score highly and be inappropriately included in the support group when they might benefit from work-related activity.
I shall give two examples. A number of case studies were provided in the background information, which hon. Members will find helpful. Under the revised PCA, someone with a moderate learning disability would score 50 points. They would be significantly above the 15-point threshold, but we clearly would not wish to put even someone with 50 points into the support group automatically, because we are determined to ensure that the new system does not write off people with learning disabilities. The technical groups considered all the options. A crude points-based system would have unintended consequences, and I accept that that is not what the hon. Member for South-West Surrey intended.

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful for those clarifications in general, but I ask the Minister to address the following points. My suggestion was not that the same question be applied in relation to both elements of the employment and support allowance. I was requesting that we streamline the administration of the tests so that claimants take only one, with the additional questions necessary to determine their eligibility for the support allowance being part of the same process. That would avoid the bureaucracy of somebody undergoing a test and then being told, “Now you’ve got to come back two weeks later to see whether you are eligible for the second test.”
My second question, to kill two birds with one stone, is whether I am correct that the main criteria for eligibility for the support component of the benefit will be the capability to do full-time work.

Jim Murphy: I shall respond to those questions when I have finished what is, by necessity, a rather technical explanation. I shall illustrate how the system will operate, and the hon. Gentleman may intervene at that point if he wishes.
A second example of the problems of a crude points-based system, which is a weakness in the current system and would be a real weakness in any newly designed welfare system aiming to give people the opportunity to get back into the labour market, is that of someone who is deaf and has a back condition that prevents them from kneeling or bending. Under the revised PCA, that person will get 30 points, entitling them to employment and support allowance. We are not in the business of saying to someone in that position that they should automatically be in the support group. I accept that that is not the point that the hon. Member for Daventry is making, but it is important to clarify our intentions.
Under a crude points-based system, people with severe limitation of functions who score above the threshold in only one descriptor would be inappropriately excluded from the support group. We intend to structure entitlement to being in that group through the use of the 46 descriptors on page 18 of the draft regulations. I know that hon. Members have found the provision of those regulations helpful. Access to the support group will be based on entitlement to ESA, requiring 15 points, and being covered by just one of the 46 descriptors. They fall under 11 headings, and an awful lot of careful consideration has gone into compiling the list; it will not be a crude points-based system. The only exception will be terminal illness, to which we have indicated there will be a different approach.
I can happily clarify the matter raised by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey about whether there should be one interview or two. The process is set out in clauses 8, 9 and 10. They cover the legal aspects of the entitlement and the appeals processes and have been carefully crafted. Clauses 8 and 9 describe one process, which will take place at one time, with the same medical expert in the same room as the customer, face to face. When the Atos Origin medical expert assesses whether someone reaches the 15 points needed for entitlement to employment and support allowance, they will also assess whether that person meets any of the 46 descriptors to entitle them to be in the support group. Clauses 8 and 9 were separated in the Bill for legal and appeal reasons on the advice of those who craft Bills. Our policy intention is, as the hon. Gentleman hoped, that the processes in those two clauses will take place at the same time.

John Robertson: I think I follow my hon. Friend, but where will somebody with a degenerative disease fit in? Initially, they would be tested and they would be eligible for support, and as the disease became more degenerative they would remain in the system. However, they would reach the stage where they were unable to work.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend makes an important point, for which the revised assessment structure will cater. An individual could be reassessed because of a changing medical condition. If there were an improvement, they could be reassessed out of a support group, and vice versa. If the individual were already on ESA, the circumstance and experience that my hon. Friend describes would mean an assessment into the support group from the work-related activity group. It is important that people have the opportunity of further assessment based on their condition. A GP or another medical expert in the field will be able to request it.

Tim Boswell: For tidiness of mind, the Minister has explained cogently why the clauses are separate. They will represent two separate decisions, albeit decisions that are carried out in the same format and simultaneously. There will be a decision about whether the person has limited capability for work, and a decision about whether their limited capability for work-related activity is such that it draws them into the support group under the 46 descriptors that the Minister has mentioned. I take it that the decision letter would be explicit about that, and that under whatever process available in social security law, one could appeal separately against both decisions.

Jim Murphy: Yes. I am happy to answer other technical or specific questions that hon. Members may have, because this issue is important.

Danny Alexander: I have a couple of questions that follow on from the Minister’s point. I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry that the explanation for the different clauses and different purposes of the two assessments is clear and cogent. However, the Minister alluded to a three-stage process, because there is also the work-focused health-related assessment, as described in clause 10.
Will the Minister clarify a couple of points? First, if someone is determined not to be part of the support group, would the work-focused health-related assessment follow on directly? Secondly, it is important to clarify who takes the decision. Currently, the medical assessors, Atos Origin, make the assessment and provide details to a decision maker, a Department for Work and Pensions employee, who then formally decides. Under the Bill, however, it sounds like the medical assessor—presumably, Atos Origin—will have to make a decision there and then about whether somebody goes into the support group in order to decide whether they should be called back into the room for the work-focused health-related assessment. Will the Minister clarify that point?

Jim Murphy: I shall happily clarify that important point. The hon. Gentleman is right that in a legal sense, Jobcentre Plus will remain as the decision maker on behalf of the Secretary of State. It will make the formal legal decision. On the point that the hon. Member for Daventry made about the decision to send an individual to the support group, Jobcentre Plus will have two decisions to make: first, the individual’s entitlement to ESA; and secondly, their entitlement to benefit from the support group.
When the customer has their single assessment, as set out in clauses 8 and 9, if the medical expert carrying it out decides that the person is likely to qualify for the support group, they will have the power to defer any work-focused health-related assessment, pending a decision by Jobcentre Plus, the decision maker. However, the customer would be able to say to the assessor, “Thank you for the assessment; I acknowledge that it has been done in good faith, but actually I want to volunteer for a work-focused, health-related assessment because I do not want to be written off”. They would then be able to undergo that assessment.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey raised a good point and I hope that I have reassured him, although I am happy to respond to further queries.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. However, if someone is assessed as having limited capability for work, they might not have limited capability for work-related activity and therefore would be part of the work-related activity group. Would they be obliged to go straight into the work-focused health-related assessment, or would they have the option of waiting for the formal decision by Jobcentre Plus before moving on to the next stage?

Jim Murphy: It would be our intention that that person should attend a work-focused health-related assessment interview at the same time. Of course, all decisions that carry any formal sanction will be appealable, but we will debate that later.

Tim Boswell: I am not trying to make difficulties for the Minister—I am beyond the limit of my own capability—but we must remember that the Department for Work and Pensions’ decision makers can never fetter their discretion and that only one decision can be taken at a time. It would not help the process, or rather the Minister would be in hot water in judicial review, if he allowed somebody to be compelled or even steered into the work-focused health-related assessment, unless or until they actually had a piece of paper establishing the audit trail. The Minister might need to give a little more thought to how that could be done. Perhaps somebody could say, “Until I get that piece of paper, I am not prepared to consider the matter any further”. It should be made clear to them that that is their right.

Jim Murphy: Of course, that would be a decision for the customer to make, but we will set out the intended structure in regulations and operational guidance, and explain the entitlement to benefit and the conditionality. Refusal to participate in the process could lead to a sanction down the road, although that would of course be appealable. We set out the safeguards on page six, I think, of the document provided—nine safeguards, plus the right of appeal. That is important.

Wayne David: Following on from the question raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, I have a more general point. The Minister has mentioned a number of times in passing that the PCA will be subject to piloting and evaluation, but he also mentioned that that will be conducted by Atos Origin. Is there not a difficulty because that company cannot be described as an independent organisation? Certainly, it has an extremely impressive track record, but is there not a danger that, if it is involved in the evaluation process, it would, in a sense, be evaluating itself? Would it not be better to have an organisation that is entirely separate and independent?

Jim Murphy: That is another issue that Ministers considered. I hope that my responses today have shown that, in constructing the Bill, I, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions looked at that matter in great detail.
On the specific point about the assessment of the PCA by Atos Origin, we intend to share the findings from the dual running of the old and new PCAs with a number of others, such as, I suspect, disability organisations. We will not be short of comment on the operation of the current and revised PCAs, the possible difference in outcomes and on whether the revised PCA meets our objectives of not writing anyone off and of being much more supportive of those with learning disabilities and fluctuating mental health conditions. As I mentioned earlier, if necessary, we will then refine the revised PCA and test it a second time against the existing PCA.
On top of everything else, I seek to reassure the Committee that we intend as far as possible to ensure that access to a support group is paper-based, through medical advice and medical certificates. For someone who may be entitled to a support group, Jobcentre Plus would initially receive the paperwork and if, in its opinion, they may be entitled to be in a support group, the paperwork would be sent direct to Atos Origin, which would seek to ascertain whether they had 15 points and met just one of the 46 descriptors. We anticipate that, in most cases, the entitlement to a support group would be paper-based.

Jeremy Hunt: The Minister has given way generously. Just before he concludes his remarks and we decide whether to withdraw the amendment, I should like to mention something. He has been helpful on the details of the amendments, but will he talk about some of the broader points that I raised this morning, particularly the desirability of moving towards a single assessment process? Will the Minister, with your generosity, Mr. Amess, say whether he or the Government are considering the possibility of making the information gleaned through the assessment process available for use in other benefits assessments, so that disabled people do not have to supply the same information constantly when applying for different benefits under the current structure?

Jim Murphy: With your indulgence, Mr. Amess, we will discuss that in debates on other amendments as we proceed.
Of course, we want to maximise information sharing, but information gathered for disability living allowance, for example, is intended for a different purpose and for different outcomes and entitlements. We seek to share information and minimise the number of times that people are asked for the same information, but it is not as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggests and I think that everyone acknowledges that.

Danny Alexander: Will the Minister and his officials reflect further, outside the Committee, on developing some sort of core assessment to which elements relating to individual benefits could be added to make the process easier?
Returning to the important point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, I should like to probe a little further on the nature of the testing. The lack of independence in the testing could be a worry and, given the high number of appeals that take place under the current system, it seems that only by following the new PCA through the appeals process could it be properly tested and assessed. This view is shared by Citizens Advice. Does the idea of following cases through to appeal and seeing what happens through the process feature in the Minister’s thinking about how the new PCA will be evaluated? I appreciate that that process will take longer and therefore it may not satisfy his desire to move things forward as efficaciously as possible, but it may also result in a system that is more robust and less open to challenge in future.

Jim Murphy: There are three outstanding questions asked by hon. Members and with their agreement I shall answer them and then—
Mr. Huntrose—

Jim Murphy: Of course, I will give way if there are pressing issues to discuss. However, other hon. Members want to move amendments, and we can, of course, continue some of the detailed discussion in relation to those.
We intend that the work-focused health-related assessments should happen at the same time. However, we are happy to reflect, as the process evolves, as to whether that continues to be the most effective way to do things. The point about a core assessment is fair, but relates to a wider point about the move towards a single working-age benefit and having a core assessment for entitlement to it. That is the context in which core assessment may be more attractive.
On appeals, again, the information is based on constituency casework and the analysis of the nature and reasons for appeal. The single most common reason for appeals being successful is the provision of additional information at a later stage after an initial decision. In the context of ESA, clauses 8 and 9 and the design of the revised PCA process, we are considering already how to improve the requests for information, including for medical information, so that at the appeals stage new information is not provided that could have been asked for or provided at an earlier point. I think that about half of the appeals are successful for that reason. Designing it now inside the IB, while we are still within that system, will help us to ensure that we have a better approach to reducing the number of appeals.
That is not our objective, of course. It is about not a target for reducing appeals but a target for getting decisions right. In a way, the number of appeals is a measure of whether decisions are right. With regard to appeals being overturned, the single biggest contributing factor is information not being available to the decision maker when the decision is made. That is the important point we will take through to the PCA and the new ESA.
I hope hon. Members will feel that they have tested the Government’s logic. We tested the logic ourselves as we went through the process of constructing the clauses and regulations. I confirm again to Opposition Members that we would anticipate the provisions under clauses 8 and 9 being carried out at the same time, in the same room, by the same person in one interview, against a threshold of 15 points for entitlement to ESA. At the same time, there will be an assessment of whether the customer meets one of the 46 descriptors identified in the draft regulations. Meeting one of those descriptors would entitle someone to be considered for the support group. They could of course volunteer to undertake a work-focused health-related assessment and some of the other support pathways on offer at that time.
In view of that, I invite the hon. Member for South-West Surrey to withdraw his amendment.

David Ruffley: I thank the Minister for the care with which he has answered our technical queries and indeed the queries of members of all sides. Before asking the hon. Member for South-West Surrey to sum up this extremely interesting debate, I would like to tease out a bit more from the Minister on clause 8 with regard to the length of assessment, in other words, the amount of time that will be taken in the hypothetical examination room that we have been talking about today.
I should like to give a couple of examples of concerns that have been expressed throughout the Green Paper consultation and by the Opposition. I should like to say parenthetically that in the Netherlands, which I have visited, equivalent medical assessments are conducted by doctors and also involve labour market specialists. Such examinations are quite lengthy—over an hour in some cases. I know that Citizens Advice has done some number crunching on the average length of medical assessments and its conclusion is that, compared with other western European countries, who have similar regimes, the UK experience falls a bit short.
We do know that there are a lot of appeals, and we are going to discuss that when we reach the next series of amendments. I do not want to anticipate that debate, but in the context of large numbers of appeals, Citizens Advice has collected evidence from a review of 96 cases that failed a PCA and found that the average assessment time was 25 minutes, with a range of between 15 minutes and 69 minutes. A separate source of information on this is a parliamentary answer that the Under-Secretary gave me earlier this year when I asked the average time taken for completion of a personal capability assessment for incapacity benefit claimants. She replied that the average examination time taken to complete a PCA was 37.8 minutes in 2000 and 37.1 minutes in 2001. She explained the position all the way to 2005, when it was 37.7 minutes. The table to which she referred is set out at column 291W of the Official Report of 30 January 2006.
I give those statistics to prompt the Minister to talk about the length of time. I do not wish to pin him to a fraction of a minute, but there will be a new regime. I shall not try the Committee’s patience by talking about clause 9, but let us consider the new test under clause 8. Will it be longer, shorter or about the same time as the times set out in the table?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank all members of the Committee for a constructive discussion on the amendments and for the generosity of Mr. Hood this morning and Mr. Amess this afternoon in allowing our discussion to range towards fundamental principles, not only the specifics of the amendments. Opposition Members would like to see more evidence from the Government of tangible steps towards more integrated assessment processes throughout the range of benefits, but we must understand that in this specific case there are good reasons for the assessment being covered by two clauses even though, in practice, the customers will be undergoing what they perceive to be one assessment.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has asked me some specific questions. I will not delay our proceedings and test my Whip’s patience because I can hear his pen clicking. When I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary were Whips, that was a sure sign of telling others to get on with it. Obviously, we hope that the support group would take no minutes as we anticipate the majority of support group assessments not to take place face to face at all. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not consider me churlish when I say that the new assessment will take as long as it takes. It is a new approach. Assessors will be assessing, interviewing and listening to people to whom, in truth, they were not listening in the past, such as those with learning disabilities and fluctuating mental health conditions. They will be looked at with a new set of physical and mental health descriptors and thus as a Government we shall not set a target for how many minutes the assessment should take. If the process evolves and we learn from best practice, that could be our territory, but it would be wrong now to set such a target.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out ‘specific disease’ and insert ‘illness’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 226, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out ‘disease or bodily or mental disablement’ and insert ‘physical or mental condition’.
No. 11, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out ‘disablement’ and insert ‘impairment’.

Danny Alexander: I tabled amendment No. 10 because “specific disease” is a narrow term. It could be interpreted as focusing only on recognised medical conditions, suggesting that a diagnosis of a medical condition must have already been made. There will always be examples of people who have a chronic health condition, while the implications of the condition might not be subject to a specific medical diagnosis. That may be due to the fact that symptoms present themselves atypically or they may be affected by a disease that is not yet fully recognised or understood by the medical community. Some people may have been diagnosed with a specific disease. They also might have other symptoms, the cause of which could be unclear, but which should be taken into account in their assessment.
There is a danger with the current terminology in the clause that doctors will be pressured into making a diagnosis to assist in meeting statutory requirements to qualify for employment and support allowance. I do not think that that is the Minister’s or the Government’s intention. A situation where a diagnosis is always required, even if doctors remain uncertain, is the current practice in relation to death certificates. But research published in June suggested that around half of death certificates are inaccurate because of pressure on doctors to diagnose a specific disease. That may result in a higher level of misdiagnosis, which could be very damaging for individuals if the practice were to be applied in this case.
Rather than a specific disease, I would argue that illness would be a much better term to use in this part of the Bill, as it offers the opportunity to consider what is described as the patient’s narrative. The value of doing that has become an important topic in the medical profession. It allows not just the treatment of the disease but consideration of a person’s individual experience of that disease, which can vary greatly symptomatically and in severity. Specifying the word “illness” in the Bill as opposed to a specific disease will therefore tie in much better with therapeutic approaches, such as the condition management programme and indeed the expert patient programme, which has been rolled out by the Department of Health and relies on the patient’s narrative. It will also prevent the Bill from being out of kilter with the direction in which the medical sector is heading as it makes greater use of narrative approaches.
I tabled amendment No. 11 because I am a bit confused about what the Government mean by “bodily or mental disablement”. That phrase is too confused for primary legislation. The term “disablement” has some advantages in that it potentially allows the relationship between the impairment and the environment to be taken into account. Is it the Minister’ intention to allow the relationship between impairment and the environment to be taken into account in this part of the Bill? The way that the term is used here locates disablement as being bodily or mental, which is completely at odds with the definition that the Government have effectively adopted with their acceptance of the strategy unit’s report, “Improving the life chances of disabled people.” That report states:
“Disability is defined for this project as the disadvantage experienced by an individual as a result of barriers (attitudinal, physical, etc.) that impact on people with impairments and /or ill health.”
I would strongly support the Government’s moves towards defining disability in this way but I think that this clause needs to make it clear whether it means disablement or the Government intend it to mean impairment. If the Minister does not wish to accept these amendments at the moment, I should be grateful if he would explain why not. Will he also consider whether the language in this part of the Bill could be improved and whether the Government might table amendments on this in due course?

Jeremy Hunt: I speak very much along the same lines as the hon. Gentleman. He makes important points. The language of this part of the Bill is antiquated. It is not used elsewhere in the Bill and it is only used in current legislation with respect to previous legislation such as that relating to the war disablement pension and severe disablement allowance. Disablement is not a term that we commonly use and it is not widely understood. I certainly would not have the confidence to venture an explanation on the difference between a disablement and an impairment.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Jeremy Hunt: I think that the Committee had moved into one of its more arcane discussions. We were debating the differences between disablement, disability and impairment. I put it to you, Mr. Amess, that if understanding the differences had been a qualification for joining this Committee, it might not have had very many members.

David Ruffley: Who is he talking about?

Jeremy Hunt: On this side, it would have been very full, but I do not wish to speculate.
The amendment does not need a huge amount of discussion. Its point is to probe whether there is a significant legal reason why we must use such archaic wording or whether we could follow George Orwell’s dictum that where a simple piece of language can be used instead of a more complicated one, that is the piece of language that we should use.

Jim Murphy: I will try to respond to all the points that have been raised, and to do so more briefly than we did earlier. By necessity, the earlier debate was pretty technical in structure.
Amendment No. 11 was tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. In clause 8, we used specific terminology with clear definitions. Disease, disablement and impairment are specific terms that have been clearly defined by the World Health Organisation. Disease—if the hon. Member for South-West Surrey will bear with me for a moment—is an objective, medically diagnosed condition. Impairment is defined as the loss or abnormality of a bodily structure or function. Disablement—I personally do not enjoy the phrase, but nevertheless it has a recognised definition—is a restriction of ability that results from an impairment. I hope that he is reassured that an impairment causes a disablement according to the World Health Organisation’s definition. It is not a medical explanation; it is a definitional explanation. The terms are clearly defined and internationally recognised and ensure that the legislation can be easily interpreted and properly applied.

Wayne David: I would not question the Minister’s definitions for one moment—I have no intention of doing so—but does that mean that the definitions employed in the Bill make it consistent with earlier legislation?

Jim Murphy: The Bill is of course consistent with previous legislation. It is the Government’s intention, through the Bill’s reference to other legislation, to be able to revise the legislation continually to take account of trends in the insurance industry and in society and of the changing nature of the customer base for the employment and support allowance.
Assessing impairment alone could mean that some customers who were not disabled by their impairments would receive benefits while other customers with more minimal impairments but suffering from severe disability would not receive it. That is not our policy intention, and I know that it is not the intention of those who have proposed amendments today.
An example might help hon. Members to understand the distinction. Someone with multiple sclerosis might have a period of many years’ remission and thus no disablement. Eligibility based on a condition alone would ensure that someone who is fit for work and wishes to work would be placed on ESA. 
We also want to include individuals with medically unexplained conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. We recognise that people with such conditions might have minimal impairment but suffer from functional limitations because of the pain and fatigue that they experience.
Amendment No. 10 was also moved by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. The definition of illness is an individual’s subjective perception of feeling unwell. It is much less specific than “disease”. Not everyone with a function-limiting disabling condition feels ill as a result. For example, people with learning disabilities have a medically diagnosed condition, but they do not have an illness. That is an important distinction, and I know that it is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention to suggest even implicitly that a learning disability is an illness.
To adopt the terminology urged by the amendment would fail to cover many whose conditions leave them functionally limited and needing the assistance of the employment and support allowance and the support available through it and the national roll-out of pathways. It would have the opposite effect to the hon. Gentleman’s stated intentions—it would exclude people, not include them.
Amendment No. 226 was tabled by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and others. The wording
“disease or bodily or mental disablement”
is very similar to the wording in section 171C(2)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which deals with the existing personal capability assessment. The wording relates to the activities that are tested by the PCA. We want to ensure that we are looking at restrictions on a claimant’s abilities correctly and to do so we tie whether someone can manage those activities to a person-specific disease or bodily or mental disablement. It is a claimant’s restricted ability resulting from a condition that makes it harder for him or her to walk or to undertake other activities, not the condition itself. The phrase “physical or mental condition” is too broad to be applied in this context for determining eligibility.
For example—again I say it gently—pregnancy is a physical condition and I know that it is not the intention of Opposition Members for it to be a considered as an entitlement to ESA. However, in respect of the amendments, the physical condition could, and would, be interpreted legally as possibly including pregnancy and other circumstances.
The danger of accepting the amendments as drafted is that they would reinvent some unfortunate aspects of the incapacity benefit system whereby it is the condition that places someone on an inactive benefit rather than the limits that that condition has imposed on their everyday life and their ability to be in the labour market.
We recognise the importance of identifying an individual’s perception of and attitude to their condition, as that can influence how they feel and their attitude to the labour market. That will be done as part of the work-focused health-related assessment which we will discuss later.
The specific words and phrases have an important and internationally recognised legal purpose, and my explanation was, by necessity, slightly technical, but I encourage the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to reflect on it and to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response and his accurate definitions.

Jeremy Hunt: I do not propose to press my amendment to a Division but I want to put it on the record that it is not helpful for a Government to use wording in earlier legislation, which may be extremely unclear and difficult to understand, as a basis for new measures.
I give as an example the Minister’s description of the difference between the words “bodily” and “physical”. “Bodily” sounds like the kind of word one would read in the Bible, but “physical” is a word that most people would understand. In respect of the common use of English, I am not sure that I agree with the Minister that pregnancy is a physical condition but not a bodily condition; it seems to me that they are two words describing exactly the same thing. It would be much more helpful if the Bills were drafted so that people without medical expertise could understand them. However, I accept the Minister’s broader points.

Jim Murphy: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has offered to withdraw the amendment, but he knows that these Bills have to be legally and technically competent. We are not writing an essay or poetic prose when we draft a Bill and we seek to ensure absolute and consistent clarity. That is the reason for using those phrases.
As I said earlier, I do not like the word “disablement” but it has a clearly defined legal and technical understanding which is recognised here and internationally. The phrases were included for reasons of clarity and consistency. To do as the hon. Gentleman suggests—I am trying to be comradely and gentle towards him—would create the type of uncertainty that he claims to want to avoid.

Danny Alexander: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 8, page 6, line 17, at end insert—
‘(d) make provision for a right to appeal against assessments’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in clause 9, page 7, line 17, at end insert—
‘(d) make provision for a right to appeal against assessments’.
No. 27, in clause 10, page 8, line 31, at end insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) shall make provision for a right to appeal against a decision made under subsection (2)(f).’.
No. 33, in clause 11, page 10, line 9, at end insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) shall make provision for a right to appeal against a decision made under subsection (2)(g).’.
No. 35, in clause 12, page 11, line 22, at end insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) shall make provision for a right to appeal against a decision made under subsection (2)(e).’.

Danny Alexander: The amendments propose a reference to a right of appeal in clauses 8 to 12. Their purpose is to probe the Government’s intention and to ensure that there will be a full appeal process for each assessment and under each clause. Given the new assessments introduced by the Bill, and the new levels of conditionality that will be introduced by later clauses in the Bill and which are dealt with by amendments Nos. 27, 33 and 35—no doubt we shall debate them fully in due course—it is important that claimants understand clearly that a proper right of appeal exists in each case.
Will the Minister make it clear for the record that the Government intend such a right of appeal to exist, and will he clarify in general terms how the appeals will work? The Minister quite rightly made the point earlier that there is a problem with the current medical assessment in getting GPs to submit information in a timely manner, and the Minister referred to the need to get that additional information up front—that is also the subject of one of the later amendment groups. However, it should be clear that appeals would allow the admission of new medical evidence even if the evidence had not been submitted by the time of the initial decision. Appeals should also allow for discussion on the appropriateness of work-related activity in which individuals are asked to take part and of the activity for which their capability is being assessed, as well as discussion on the standards of service provision of work-related activity and on the support that claimants should receive for compliance, bearing in mind that compliance will be a condition of their receiving benefit. Variations in the health condition of individuals could prevent them from continuing with work-related activity requirements, and that may also be the basis for a valid appeal.
Earlier, we discussed the relatively high appeal rate under the current system and the relatively high proportion of successful appeals. It is likely that more appeals will be made on introduction of the new allowance, so it is important that appeals procedures are clear and that they are in place from the outset. Will the Minister therefore put on record the Government’s position on rights of appeal?

David Ruffley: I should like to say a few words about appeals and about the importance of getting these clauses right. If we do not, we may face the same high number of appeals that we have seen under the current regime—not just the regime since 1997 but the one that was operated by the Conservative Administration before 1997. I should like to share some figures, for which I do not apportion blame to the current Government—excessive numbers of appeals appear to have been endemic in the system for a long time. Having too many appeals is bad for two reasons. First, and most importantly, they are bad for claimants. By definition, if claimants are seeking to go on to some form of support or welfare, they are in need. People in need are quite often stressed and vulnerable, and the last thing they need is the strain and uncertainty that comes with what can be long-drawn-out appeal procedures. The second reason why we need to ensure that the legislation and regulations are tightly drafted, and to reduce the number of appeals below their historic levels, is that an excessive number of appeals is bad value for the taxpayer. More time spent by Government officials administering long-drawn-out procedures is more of the DWP’s budget spent on that process and administration and less going to the front line. Therefore, I would hope that we all agree that too many appeals are a bad thing. I guess one of the tests of the proposals throughout this Bill is how we can do better in the future.
The report by the president of appeal tribunals in 2004-5 found that 50 per cent. of incapacity benefit appeal cases surveyed were overturned and found in favour of the claimant. Interestingly, that compares with 28 per cent. of cases overturned for JSA claimants, 35 per cent. for income support claimants and 48 per cent. in the case of disability living allowance cases. With reference to IB cases, the main reasons given by the report were that the tribunal was given additional evidence not available to the decision maker—I think the Minister referred to that in an earlier debate today. That occurred in 70 per cent. of relevant cases. The report also found that tribunal chairmen commonly commented that the presence of the appellant at the tribunal either produced new evidence or shed light on existing evidence. That was particularly the case when dealing with mental health issues.
The second most reported reason for IB cases being overturned was that the medical report underestimated the severity of the disability, a point raised earlier by the hon. Lady the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). That occurred in 50 per cent. of overturned cases, an increase from 37 per cent. in the previous year. Tribunal chairmen expressed concern that the length of time taken to complete medical examinations was inadequate—a point that we have also touched on today—resulting in incomplete histories being taken of a claimant.
We also know the Public Accounts Committee has the same perspective. Its 2003-04 report, “Progress on improving the medical assessments for incapacity benefit and disability living allowance” concluded that the number of successful appeals continued to suggest that the performance of doctors and DWP decision makers had to improve. The report recommended that the Department should provide regular feedback on appeal tribunal cases to the doctors and decision makers involved so that they knew the outcomes of the cases that they had examined.
In November 2005, the DWP issued new guidance which emphasised the role of reconsideration in the decision-making and appeal process. I do not know whether the current Ministers were then in post; I have lost track. Actually, there has been continuity among the Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries who do the real work, but there has been a bit more change at the top. I wish to make no party political point there. [Interruption] Well, that is all the Minister and Under-Secretary are going to get out of me today. The hon. Gentleman has been tempting me all day and earlier in the week, and I have not gone down the party political route.

Jeremy Hunt: Despite severe provocation.

David Ruffley: As my hon. Friend said, despite severe provocation.

Jeremy Hunt: Does my hon. Friend consider that the party political diatribes, in so far as they have emerged in this Committee, usually tend to be preceded by the word “gently” from the Minister?

David Ruffley: I will not try your patience, Mr. Amess.
Suffice to say that the advice given in November 2005—issued by the DWP—emphasised the role of reconsideration in the decision-making appeal process. In January, the Green Paper itself acknowledged that further improvements to the decision-making appeal process were needed. If I may quote—Ministers have obviously come across this, but I do have a point following on—the Green Paper said:
“We recognise that a robust and independent appeals process is an integral part of any fair system of assessment. The current system generates a very high number of appeals, many of which are successful. We believe that improvements can be made so the need for appeals is minimised.”
We are all on the same page here and the Ministers are already on to this.
I understand that the DWP proposes to reduce the number of appeals by ensuring that claimants have a clear understanding of the basis for the initial decision. We will touch on that in Committee, and it will also incorporate a comprehensive reconsideration process before an appeal moves in to the tribunal phase. Finally, it will ensure that new evidence is included in the reconsideration process rather than at the tribunal. That is my understanding.
I have a simple question for Minister. Could he give us an update on how they see these good ideas that proceed from the Green Paper proposals operating and where might we discover more about that in this Bill?
My final point relates to an argument made by the TUC and Mr. Excell, who I should say has been a great—

Jeremy Hunt: Supporter of the Conservatives.

David Ruffley: A great witness, I was going to say, and particularly in the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into pathways to work in the spring. Mr. Excell has come up with some telling points. He has experienced mental health issues at close quarters, and to show that I am not an aggressively modern Conservative, I am happy to quote a point from official TUC policy, because it is a good one. He has said:
“Are there contingency plans in place to deal with the predicted rise in appeals as a result of the new test?”
It struck me as interesting that he is predicting already that there will be a rise in appeals as a result of the new test. It is not because he is a pessimist. He explains his logic as follows:
“If there is going to be a new test then there are going to be masses of appeals. You can guarantee that. The effect of the new test will be the same as it always is. This would be true under any Government regime that wanted new tests. Initially you get a bit reduction in the numbers coming on to the benefit and then advice workers and so on find their way round the new system and the numbers start creeping up again and a big load of appeals will almost certainly be part of that.”
That is the view of Mr. Excell.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, so does he agree with the point I made earlier about the importance of evaluating the new test to ensure that it works properly and that the evaluation is carried through to the appeals stage and not just done quickly over a couple of months?

David Ruffley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and we will no doubt return to this issue when we get to the clauses relating to piloting. We must not lose sight of that and I am sure we will be able to tease out some further thoughts from the Minister.
I do not wish to be pessimistic and do not wish to talk down this new test before it is even put in place. That is not the point of my remarks. The point of my remarks is to ask whether any contingency planning has been done in case the circumstances that Mr. Excell predicts come to pass. It will be useful to hear whether there is any budgetary allowance being made for contingency planning if there is the cascade of further appeals that we hope will not occur. This is not because the test is a bad one, or faulty, or that we have not being doing our work in tightening it up in Committee, but simply because of the nature of the beast. When there is a new test, initially it can tighten the gateway but, after time, when people get used to how it works, it might lead to more appeals. None of us here want to get back to square one.
This is clearly already an issue that Ministers have flagged up in their earlier guidance and have talked about in the Green Paper. I am just looking for some kind of progress report and, in particular, I would like to know whether there is a contingency plan.

John Robertson: In my experience as an MP, problems with the appeals procedure occur at the first interview when the person is brought in to be assessed. Will the Minister allay my fears? Part of the problem is that nobody takes responsibility for ensuring that all the information that must be gathered—from GPs, hospitals, social workers or anyone else concerned with the person being interviewed—is with the assessor at the time of the assessment. Yet, even though the assessor knows that the medical information is not there, they still go ahead with the assessment, which, as we have heard today, is done on a points-based system.
Although the individual in question will know the impact of their illness on their everyday life, they will not understand the fine details, which have to be given to the assessor. My great fear is that we will go down the same road as we always do and have the same problem and number of appeals—who knows with a new system, we might even have more.
Will the Minister allay my fears and confirm that at the first point of the assessment, the assessor will take full responsibility for ensuring that all the medical documentation has been received and that they converse with the necessary people, whether the GP, consultant or social worker, to ensure that they have all the information at their fingertips? That would prevent more than half the appeals that go through, such as those about which people come to see me in surgery.

Jim Murphy: In the spirit of this consensus, I pay tribute to Richard Excell from the TUC, and his colleagues. Obviously, Richard is the person with whom we talk most regularly, but the entire TUC is committed and determined to ensure that no one is written off. As we all know, the historical Labour party and trade union demand for the right to work regardless of circumstance or background finds a strong echo in what we are setting out today.
Unless we achieve some of the objectives being discussed today, we cannot meet our commitment to providing full employment for everyone regardless of circumstance or ability and ensuring that they have the chance to enter the labour market if they so wish. I happily add a tribute from Government Members to Mr. Richard Excell; he has worked on welfare reform as well as important work on child poverty with the Department and I know that all my hon. Friends endorse very strongly the work that the TUC does on that agenda.
On appeals, I say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, as with many of his other amendments, that he has given us the opportunity to put on the record our intention: customers will have a right of appeal over every decision that attracts a sanction. We have spoken about non-attendance at work-focused interviews and work-focused, health-related assessments, and other aspects of conditionality, and I can say that there will be an appeal against any decision that attracts a financial sanction. I hope that that reassures him.
On the Government’s approach to reducing the number of appeals, it would be ridiculous for us to say how many appeals we think that there might be. An individual may take the right to appeal if they so wish. We have set out on page 6 of the draft regulations on the support of appeal the other protections for those who need or wish to appeal a sanction. Hon. Members may know that people will have the right to be accompanied by an advocate to speak on their behalf on such occasions. The key to reducing the number of appeals, including successful appeals, is getting decisions right.

Danny Alexander: I want to ensure that the Committee understands this point precisely. The Minister used a specific form of words: he said that customers will have a right to appeal against every decision that attracts a sanction. What about decisions that do not attract a sanction, such as a decision whether to grant benefit or a decision as to which component of benefit someone will be entitled to? Those decisions do not carry a sanction, yet people would expect a right of appeal against them, and I certainly hope that they would have that right.

Jim Murphy: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. An assessment about which component of ESA someone is entitled to will have a financial impact—whether it is a support group or a work-related activity group—and therefore there would be a right of appeal. Whether someone is entitled to ESA at all is a financial issue as well, so that would also come under the new ESA arrangements.
Without labouring the point too much, getting the decision right in the first place is obviously a way to reduce the number of successful appeals. That is one of the most important aspects. Hon. Members have compared the number of appeals relating to jobseeker’s allowance with those relating to incapacity benefit, but the assessment for JSA is relatively straightforward, whereas the assessments for IB and ESA are, by their nature, a good deal more complicated.
I want to move towards a system of reconsideration of decisions, rather than fully blown appeals, so that when someone presents new evidence the decision maker looks at it and reconsiders the decision, rather than putting the customer through the difficulty of the appeal process and taking the advocates to the appeal and then presenting the evidence, at which point the decision may be overturned. It would be much better to increasingly rely on reconsideration by decision makers. That is an important part of reducing the number of appeals, including successful appeals.
We are working with the appeal tribunal, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and others, and having conversations about how we can get the detail exactly right now and in the future in terms of ESA. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West is right about the assessor taking responsibility for what is going on and the fact that the decision maker should have a sense of responsibility and initiative, because although that already happens in many instances, that sense has not, perhaps, been strong enough in other instances. It is about ensuring that we have a system whereby the decision maker can ask for more information, so that a reconsideration takes place rather than people having to go through the whole journey.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in his customarily clear way how this would work. In terms of the reconsideration, which I understand is a mechanism to speed up the process—I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West—if a claimant is unsatisfied with the result of a reconsideration, will the Minister just clarify that there would still be a formal power of appeal? The purpose of the amendments was to make it explicit that powers to make regulations in relation to the rights to appeal are in the Bill. If the Minister does not intend to accept the amendments, will he make it clear where the powers come from to make those regulations?

Jim Murphy: I shall happily do so—but relatively briefly. The hon. Gentleman’s concern can be allayed by the fact that a reconsideration is not an alternative to an appeal. Someone can go through the reconsideration process and still go through the appeal process. The answer to his relatively technical question is that we have absolutely no intention of advancing regulations in these clauses without ensuring that there is a right of appeal against a decision to disallow a benefit or one that could lead to the sanction of a customer’s benefit, as I have already said.
The Bill already provides for rights of appeal in relation to ESA in schedule 3(6)(3), which amends section 8 of the Social Security Act 1998, so that the ESA will be deemed a “relevant benefit” and part 1 of the Bill will be a “relevant enactment” for the purposes of that section. Social security appeals are dealt with in the 1998 Act and legislation supporting it. We are ensuring that the employment and support allowance fits into that structure. For the technical reason that I have outlined, the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman is unnecessary. With that reassurance, I encourage him to withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the Minister’s extensive clarification, on the basis of which I am reassured. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 8, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
‘(ba) as to the duties of third parties to provide relevant information and evidence and the manner in which it is to be provided;’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
No. 24, in clause 9, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
‘(ba) as to the duties of third parities to provide relevant information and evidence and the manner in which it is to be provided;’.

Danny Alexander: These amendments relate to a point that has already been a matter of some discussion in this Committee. That is the question to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West referred: the need for outside organisations, particularly GPs, hospitals or doctors, to supply information in a timely fashion for the initial assessment. As a number of hon. Members have said, such information is often not supplied in time for the initial assessment to take place. The information that could have been supplied in time for the assessment is then brought forward at the appeal stage, leading to a greater number of appeals. I understand that in some parts of the country, around 50 per cent. of requests to GPs for information for disability benefits are not responded to. That varies in different parts of the country, but most members of the Committee would consider such a lack of provision of information unacceptable. The lack of such information is one of the main reasons why appeals are made.
The reason for tabling the amendments is that, to prevent a similar situation arising for employment and support allowance assessments, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to have a power to make regulations to ensure that relevant health professionals provide the necessary information in a timely manner. Of course, that power may not need to be used, but I submit to the Committee that the Bill should allow for the possibility of such a requirement. If the Committee and the Government were to support the amendments, that is what they would be doing. I encourage the Minister to accept them, or at least to indicate whether he would be minded to table Government amendments on the matter at a later stage.

Jim Murphy: In response to amendments No. 13 and 24, across the country responses from some GPs are unacceptably slow. Many GPs see the importance of such work and are actively engaged in ensuring that they provide the information in an accurate and timely way. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Legislation already places duties on GPs to ensure that they participate in the process that we are discussing today. Although the obligations of GPs to provide information are contained in their contracts, we have set out the content of such contracts in legislation, in the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2004. We shall amend those regulations appropriately to deal with employment and support allowance. Meanwhile, we shall amend section 130 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to include employment and support allowance, placing a duty on employers to provide us with the information that we request. I shall happily go into more detail if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I hope that that explanation reassures him.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I would only note in passing that, at a later stage of the Bill, we shall discuss sanctions on claimants for not participating in activities that they are required to participate in by law. Does the Minister think it appropriate, given the emphasis that he put on the importance of responsibility, about which I agree, that in some parts of the country 50 per cent. of GPs are not submitting information that they are required by law to submit? Should they be sanctioned in some way?

Jim Murphy: All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that later in our proceedings he will have the opportunity to table an amendment suggesting such sanctions for employers and GPs.

Danny Alexander: That is an interesting response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in clause 8, page 6, line 24, leave out ‘medical examination’ and insert
‘assessment relating to his physical or mental condition’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 246, in clause 8, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
‘(d) for information from the claimant’s Disability Living Allowance assessment to be used in place of medical examinations or assessments.
No. 191, in clause 8, page 6, line 33, leave out ‘a medical examination’ and insert
‘an assessment relating to his physical or mental condition’.
No. 192, in clause 9, page 7, line 25, leave out ‘medical examination’ and insert
‘assessment relating to his physical or mental condition’.
No. 247, in clause 9, page 7, line 25, at end insert—
‘(d) for information from the claimant’s Disability Living Allowance assessment to be used in place of medical examinations or assessments.’.

Danny Alexander: By replacing the term “medical examination” with “assessment relating to his physical or mental condition”, as suggested in amendments Nos. 191 and 192, we would introduce a broader concept allowing the inclusion of a range of evidence rather than simply a face to face examination. Instead of the process being excessively medicalised, as it were, that would allow other matters such as psycho-social factors to be taken into account. That might mean using non-medical as well as medical evidence, which returns us to our debate on Tuesday on labour market disadvantage. It would allow, for example, consideration of a patient’s own account of the severity of their illness and the way in which their impairment affects them and limits how they can live their life.
The impact of a person’s environment on their illness could also be taken into account; for example, a lack of mobility could be more of an impairment and barrier to a person who lives in an area that is poor for accessible transport, such as a remote village in the highlands and islands of Scotland. The lack of any form of accessible public transport could be more of a barrier to someone with a mobility problem than to someone in a city. The amendments would also allow account to be taken of the psychological impact of an illness or impairment and symptoms for which there is not a clear medical explanation.
I point out to the Minister that the Disability Rights Commission has argued that the amendments would be consistent with moves to make the personal capability assessment more inclusive of mental health problems. I urge him to consider carefully the proposed change in wording which, while enabling the process that has been described to take place, would allow a broader range of factors to be taken into account, more closely reflecting not only the medical components of someone’s impairment or condition but its consequences on their ability to engage in society in the way that we have discussed.

Jeremy Hunt: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 246 and 247, which stand in my name. They are probing amendments, and I do not wish to repeat our discussions of this morning about the importance of simplifying the assessment processes. If it were possible to share information that applicants have already supplied in the limited capability for work assessment process when filling in forms for the disability living allowance, that would reduce the burden of complying with the assessment process.
I am aware, particularly after the Minister’s explanation, that the two tests will be fundamentally different in structure. It is a challenge, but I put it to Ministers that a lot of the things that they are trying to identify through the limited capability for work assessment and the DLA assessment have common ground. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey suggested that we should consider having a core assessment that could be used across both tests. If the Minister cannot accept our amendments, is he willing to undertake to examine whether it would be possible to combine elements of the assessments as a small step towards simplifying the assessment procedures?
I must say that I do not think that the amendments are worded as well as they might be. Clearly, some people who apply for this new benefit will not be on DLA, so perhaps it would be advantageous to proceed with these amendments using slightly clearer wording. What the Conservatives had in mind when we tabled the amendments was that the assessment process might include a series of questions, in which those currently receiving DLA could proceed to question 7 without having to deal with questions 1 to 6 because those grounds would already have been covered.
That was the kind of thing that we had in mind—simplifying the process to make the transition between being on benefit and off benefit as smooth as possible, so that people on benefit are not frightened to leave benefit and engage in the world of work, because they feel that it will be relatively easy to go back on benefit should they need to do so.

Jim Murphy: Again, I will try to respond as briefly as detail allows to the specific points that have been raised. We cannot enter into designing new forms by Committee today. I shall not be tempted down the road of discussing which questions should be on which form, whether it is questions 1 to 7 on a DLA form or any other form. The hon. Gentleman’s principle is a fair one and one that the Government are already committed to—greater information sharing and the removal where possible of unnecessary repetition of requests for information. We also want to ensure where we can that we use information that already exists within government.
I turn to the specific suggestion in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. As I said, DLA and ESA both consider the functional effects of diseases or disabling conditions, but they are designed for completely different purposes. As a result, their entitlement criteria are completely different. DLA identifies when a claimant needs help with personal care, mobility or supervision or needs to be supervised to avoid danger. ESA is an entirely different benefit for a different purpose. It will identify when a claimant has limited capability for work. Someone may claim DLA while working and be eligible despite that fact. Because the purposes of the two benefits are so different, it is difficult to imagine how we could use core information collected for DLA in any meaningful way for ESA.
One of the principles underlying DLA is that it is a benefit based on customers’ self-assessment of their needs. Many customers claiming DLA do not have a medical examination before their entitlement is determined. Of 95,800 new DLA claims between April and June this year, only 14,000 claimants had a medical examination. I know that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that placing the DLA process on top of or alongside the ESA process would unintentionally reinvent some of the worst aspects of incapacity benefit. Therefore, it is not something that we are attracted to. However, the general direction—information sharing and reducing the burden on the customer—is one to which the Government are totally committed. I remind the Committee that the only caveat in terms of repeat requests for information is that, with fluctuating conditions, we will seek to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information.

Jeremy Hunt: I appreciate that the Minister is as committed as I am to the principle of trying to simplify the assessment processes as far as possible. Are there any things going on in his Department that he could describe to the Committee to reassure us that this is not just a worthy ideal and that the Department is taking practical steps to see whether the assessment processes can be simplified?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we get to clause 38 we can have the debate on information sharing in much more detail. He could also table amendments if he felt it appropriate.
I turn to amendments Nos. 190, 191 and 192. The personal capability assessment is a process of gathering and evaluating information from a number of sources so that we can assess whether an individual has limited capability for work or limited capability for work-related activity based on the 15 points threshold or the 46 descriptors. We request information from health care professionals and other relevant people. Customers who are not placed in a support group are asked to complete a self-assessment form to help us to assess their condition.
Part of the evidence-gathering process is the face-to-face medical assessment with an Atos Origin health care professional. The references in clauses 8 and 9 to medical examination are to that specific element of the PCA process. Replacing “examination” with “assessment” would not make it clear that these references relate to a specific part of the process. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey rightly tabled his amendment in order to clarify our intention. Replacing that word, which has a specific meaning in this context, would lead to confusion about assessment and examination. As we explained earlier, this assessment process is related to three clauses and it would be unhelpful to confuse matters, as his amendment would unintentionally do. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. It has helped to have a chance to address the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Danny Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 172, in clause 8, page 6, line 25, after ‘require’, insert
‘, subject to the provision of reasonable adjustments in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act (c.50)’.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 156, in clause 10, page 9, line 2, after ‘place’, insert
‘and other such reasonable adjustments as may be required’.
No. 193, in clause 10, page 9, line 4, at end insert—
‘(d) that in such circumstances as the regulations may prescribe the requirement to undertake a work-focused health-related assessment will be subject to the provision of reasonable adjustments to account for a person’s physical or mental condition.’.
No. 199, in clause 10, page 9, line 8, after ‘work’, insert—
‘(aa) the extent to which his capability for work may be improved by the provision of reasonable adjustments’.

Danny Alexander: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure through debate that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will apply to assessments for the employment and support allowance. I hope that the Minister can provide for that. The amendment has the support of a number of organisations working in this area: Rethink, the National Autistic Society, Mind, Together: Working for Wellbeing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Mencap, Citizens Advice, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, Skill, the Disability Alliance and the Parkinson’s Disease Society. I will not list all the supporters for every amendment, but in this case it is a significant list.
There are a number of reasons behind the amendment. One thing that the current high level of appeals suggests, other than the factors we discussed earlier, is that the assessment process is failing a significant number of claimants. The assessment process itself needs to be more sensitive to ensure that all claimants, regardless of the nature of their impairment or condition, are able to participate fully and provide relevant information during the assessment process itself. That would contribute to better decision making and a reduction in the number of appeals.
Many claimants, or potential claimants, who may come for assessment have a right to reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act. However, the purpose of the amendment is to embed the right explicitly in the assessment process to ensure that, as part of the preliminaries to the assessment process, assessors ensure that possible or reasonable adjustments are considered. From December 2006 the Disability Discrimination Act will cover all functions of public authorities and the public sector will be under a duty to promote disability equality.
In response to the welfare reform Green Paper, the Disability Rights Commission recommended that the Department for Work and Pensions should work with its medical services contractor Atos Origin—the company that conducts the assessments—and other stakeholders to improve the process of examinations and to anticipate and meet the disability equality duty obligations, especially in relation to mental health. I understand that the DWP have taken that up and there is some thinking that the contract with Atos Origin should be reworded or reformulated so as to make that clear. In addition to spelling out for the Committee that he considers that appropriate, I hope the Minister will state what progress has been made with Atos Origin in reviewing the existing contracts to ensure that they meet disability equality duty requirements.

Jim Murphy: The Government and the Department for Work and Pensions are proud of our record in advancing the interests of disabled people and other groups whose rights should be championed in legislation.
In many cases it will be necessary to ask the customer to attend a medical examination, especially at the start of a new claim for employment and support allowance. The Committee has already discussed why that may be necessary, even though we want the support group to ensure that in as many instances as possible there will be no need to attend the medical assessment.
Although attendance at these examinations is vital, we are aware that people receiving employment and support allowance will have health conditions or disabilities. We need to be flexible in how we arrange and carry out the examinations, especially when we consider the diversity of experience of customers on ESA. We are actively supporting those with learning disabilities and mental health difficulties to give them a chance to get back into the labour market. Where possible, we will put the emphasis on flexibility and sensitivity, which includes making the appropriate reasonable adjustments. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, the amendments are unnecessary and I will spell out why.
As hon. Members will be aware, section 21B of the Disability Discrimination Act will come into force on 4 December. That provision, which was inserted by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, will make it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate against a disabled person in carrying out its functions. In addition, section 21E of the Act will also come fully into force on that day, ensuring that public authorities will be under a duty to make reasonable adjustments in carrying out their functions. The Secretary of State's functions in relation to deciding or dealing with any claim for employment and support allowance will be covered by these provisions.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may be concerned that medical examinations and health-related assessments are likely to be undertaken by a contractor on behalf of the Secretary of State, as they are at present. The process in the contract, or subcontract will be similar to the national roll-out of pathways to the private and voluntary sector. However, let me make it clear that the Secretary of State will not be avoiding his duties under the DDA by contracting with a private or voluntary sector provider in relation to the ESA.
The functions of the Secretary of State in relation to ESA will remain his functions even if he contracts with a third party to undertake them. Section 58(2) of the DDA provides that
“Anything done by a person as agent for another person with the authority of that other person shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as also done by that other person.”
This means that the Secretary of State will still be subject to all his duties and obligations under the DDA. For the purposes of the DDA, anything done by a contractor would be regarded as being done by the Secretary of State. Because of that, the Secretary of State will want to ensure that any contractor delivering services on his behalf supports his compliance with his duties in the Act.
I fully appreciate the importance of ensuring that all reasonable adjustments are made in relation to customers attending for assessment in connection with their claim for ESA and ensuring that that is done in compliance with the duties placed on the Secretary of State by the DDA. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, who will be interested in this point as a matter of principle and detail, that we will ensure that any contractor undertaking such assessments on behalf of the Secretary of State will be required to make all reasonable adjustments, and that they will have to support such compliance, and that these requirements will be fully reflected in the contractual agreements with those contractors.
This has of necessity been a technical explanation, but I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Danny Alexander: That is one of the more reassuring speeches that the Minister has made today and, on that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Amess: I call Mr. Hunt to move the next amendment.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in clause 8, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
‘(d) for a person to be treated as having good cause for any act or omission if the act or omission occurs as a consequence of his limited physical or mental functioning, following such verification as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe.’.
I have been caught slightly on the hop.

David Amess: Perhaps someone will raise a point of order.
Mr. Ruffleyrose—

Danny Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. If it would be convenient for the Committee to consider amendment No. 171 first, I should be happy to proceed on that basis.

David Amess: That is a helpful suggestion in these difficult circumstances, but I remind the Committee that we are on amendment No. 224. I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey soon finds his notes.

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful to Committee members for their forbearance.
The amendment has the support of a large number of charities in the disability lobby. It seeks to protect customers from having their limited capability for work, and therefore their entitlement to benefit, called into question because of incapacity or impairment. We are concerned that claimants may not turn up to an interview if, for example, they suffer from a mental illness or anxiety, have difficulty in understanding procedures, or have learning disabilities. Such mental conditions may cause them to fail not only to turn up for an interview—something for which the Bill contains sanctions—but to inform the assessor that they will not be turning up. I am sure that the Government do not intend such people to be penalised for the very impairment that the Bill seeks to help them address so that they are able to get into the labour market or to return to it.

John Robertson: I realise that the amendment is important, which is why the hon. Gentleman had to prepare for it. Will he tell me how he stands in relation to those offenders who constantly fail to turn up for interviews and who still use the exact excuse that he has mentioned?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is why the amendment would insert the words “good cause,” so that flexibility would be given to the assessors, and so that they could distinguish people who fail to turn up deliberately—without good cause—thereby exploiting and discrediting the process. We do not want any truck with such people. However, there may be some who can participate in the process only with assistance. For example, those who may be entitled to the support element of the benefit may be able to participate only with the help of a personal assistant or carer. They may not receive that help if the carer does not turn up on the day or if the personal assistant is ill, and that may prevent them from participating. I know that it is not the Government’s intention that anyone in that category be penalised. The amendment is therefore intended to probe the Government to see whether safeguards will be in place to ensure that people are not penalised in that way.

Jim Murphy: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Surrey on finding his amendment, and on moving it; or on moving it and then finding it—I am not sure which. Perhaps I should congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for trying to move it on his behalf. I also congratulate you, Mr. Amess: I have been here for nearly a decade but it is the first time that I have seen a Chairman encourage a point of order. I have never before seen a filibuster from a Chairman. The Bill is unusual in many ways.
The way in which the hon. Member for South-West Surrey moved his amendment suggested that he anticipates being reassured, and I know that I can reassure him. The PCA is, of course, an evidence-gathering process. Clause 8(4) allows us to determine whether a customer who has without good cause failed to provide the information requested or failed to take part in a medical examination does or does not have limited capability for work. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection permit regulations to identify the matters that should be taken into account when considering whether someone has shown good cause for a failure to provide information or attend a medical examination. It also allows identification of circumstances in which someone would be treated as having, or not having, good cause.
The Government intend to set out in regulations pursuant to clause 8 the matters that will be taken into account in determining whether a customer has shown good cause. We shall have discussions with all interested parties on what should constitute good cause, because it is certainly not our intention to adopt a sanctions-first approach in any aspect of the Bill. The ethos that has run right through the pathways programme, and that has made it so successful, is a sanctions-last approach. That will permeate what we are seeking to do in this part of the Bill.
We shall seek to ensure that no one is unfairly penalised. Regulations will ensure that the matters that have been mentioned are included in the factors to be taken into account. We shall not set out an exhaustive list, because of the need to respond to the situations of individual customers. Much will be set out in operational guidance, but we want to ensure that those who are face to face with individual customers have flexibility at a local level—flexibility that could not be afforded by including all potential circumstances of good cause in a central set of regulations. We shall list some of the more significant circumstances, but we shall allow a sense of flexibility to determine at a local level what is good cause. The intention is to allow people to be able to argue what is and is not good cause, and my recollection is that five days should be allowed in which to provide information. The regulations already list as factors that we will take into account the state of health of a claimant at the relevant time and the nature of any disability from which he suffers.
I hope that that response reassures the hon. Gentleman that we shall not seek to penalise unnecessarily. Sanctions will be the last resort, and the circumstances that constitute good cause will not only be set out in a list but will be the subject of flexibility at a local level, so that the circumstances that are known to exist around the country can be taken into account.

David Amess: For the sake of clarity, I remind the Committee that Mr. Jeremy Hunt moved the amendment.

Jeremy Hunt: Before I respond to the Minister, may I thank you, Mr. Amess, for your generosity and for encouraging an appropriate point of order? May I also thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey for being willing to move his amendment first.
Although I lost my place in my notes, that was not because I believed the amendment to be unimportant, and I am pleased that we have been able to bring the issue to the Committee’s attention. Nevertheless, the Minister’s comments have reassured me, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Four o’clock until Tuesday 24 October at half-past Ten o’clock.